You're right Sydney - not all of them are going to happen. They're worries
- hypothetical worries in some cases - but they impact directly on the work
I do and it would be wrong of me to not raise them.
In answer to your other points:
- You are right that the alternative of not doing anything or putting it
off seems worse. It *is* worse to not do anything. Indeed, this is
something I've wanted to do for years (I simply haven't had the time) and I
am 100% behind it happening. It is sensible and I will do everything I can
to support it.
- However, when you say "a group of people taking a run at sorting this
out seems like a good first approach" - it is a good first approach, but I
worry that the first approach will become the only approach, and that the
results will be used even if they're too "rough" to use. This is a huge
task and it needs to be right or it runs the risk of damaging the movement.
- I don't think this should be done by a formal group of representatives
- in my experience committees aren't an amazing way of doing things like
this. The team who have been put together seem to be bright young things
and I have no doubt that they will do the best job they can - but I think
that the first version can be improved with a lot more buy-in from the rest
of the movement :-)
Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
On 4 November 2014 19:03, Sydney Poore <sydney.poore(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Richard, I appreciate your view and understand your
concerns. But even if
all of your worries are true, which I'm not sure is the case, the
alternative of not doing anything or putting it off seems worse. A group of
people taking a run at sorting this out seems like a good first approach.
And an alternative approach of having all of this work be done by a formal
group of representatives of chapters/thematic organizations with the
assistance a WMF staff like the Fiance Fellows doesn't really seem to
answer the concerns that you raise. And in fact puts more of a burden on
the groups.
Sydney
Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wikipedian in Residence
at Cochrane Collaboration
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Richard Symonds <
richard.symonds(a)wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
Thanks for the replies. They've calmed my
fears a fair bit, but I'm
still a
little concerned - even simple questions like*
"of your administrative
costs, **how much were your travel costs"* don't really make a lot of
sense
to us, because some of our travel costs
aren't administrative - and we
don't track "administrative expenditure" because that term isn't a
definition we use, and it's not clearly defined.
This is why we've been having trouble with understanding some
Grantmaking/FDC reports in the past - our method of reporting our
financial
information differs from the way that teams at
the WMF would like it to
be
presented, because our key definitions differ
(not to criticise the
grantmaking team, who are very helpful in this regard!)
I think that this project is trying to fix these problems, and it's a
commendable effort - but:
1. Your team can't create entirely new definitions for organisations
to
report to (because we simply can't afford
to increase our finance team
to
report to another definition - we already report to three different
definitions). There is very little appetite in the movement for bigger
or
more professional finance teams and any big changes to reporting
requirements simply won't be possible without more resources going
that
way.
2. Your team may not be able to get all the information they need from
participants because participants are simply too busy - in which case,
the
results of the report will go ahead and be used by the movement even
though
it may not be accurate or indeed fit for purpose. If the FDC process
then
goes ahead and uses the report outcomes to ask for financial
information,
then it means that the inaccurate report will have a direct effect on
the
metrics we're marked against, and thus a direct effect on movement
funding.
3. As WMUK, I fear that the less effort we put into involving
ourselves
in the process, the greater the chance that
the final outcome will be
a
poor one for us. This in turn means that this
actually has to be
something
that WMUK put a fair amount of effort into influencing, to ensure that
our
views are listened to and that the final report is something we can
actually report against! I worry about how smaller chapters, like
Ghana,
Ukraine or Hungary - or the fledgling user
groups - will manage, if
the
final definitions don't reflect their
views at all.
4. You say that if an organisation can't give your team the
information
they want, a phrase will appear in the final
report along the lines of
"there are concerns about the quality of the data provided by
Wikimedia
UK"... which won't be true, and will
be read into by the community as
"WMUK
has been audited and found wanting"!
5. The report is intended to make data* "consistent, meaningful and
comparable among the chapters, thematic organizations, and the
Foundation" *-
a laudable goal and one I fully support - but it appears that the
Foundation aren't being consulted by the Finance Fellows at all. Where
will
their views and date be taken into account - will they be using the
same
process as everyone else, or a different
process? I am not a cynic
and I
don't think that the WMF will use this
process to dictate what
reporting
requirements should be, but I do worry that
unless the WMF go through
the
same process, the end result will be relatively easy for the WMF teams
to
accomplish and rather harder for the rest of us! This increases our
back-office costs and makes thorgs appear less efficient when that
won't
necessarily be the case.
I trust the team - they are a group of keen, young, idealistic people -
and
I know that this is going to be done in good
faith, but I don't see how
it
can be done fairly without a lot of work from the
organisations involved
-
if they don't get involved, their views
won't be reflected.
In order for this to be successful, his has to be a* team effort*, from
all
the financial and project teams (and
individuals!) across the world, and
at
present it isn't - and given that this is the
first the rest of the
movement has heard of the report, it will be very difficult for the rest
of
us to help at such short notice.
I really, really appreciate what you're doing - but I want to be part of
this endeavour, and I hope you see my worries!
Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A
4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of
a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
On 31 October 2014 20:46, Michael Guss <mguss(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello Liam and Richard,
Let me try to answer some of your questions.
*Do you have an idea of how much work will be required by movement orgs
for
this?*
*Very little actually: it is a matter of simply answering an email
asking,
for instance, out of your "Administrative
Costs" listed in your most
recent report, how much were your travel costs.* *There will not be
further
paperwork to be submitted. It is the fellows'
job to make the final
report,
not the chapters or thematic organizations.
Furthermore, we are working
with the WMF Grantmaking department as they contribute their expertise
and
> their already existing reports. Therefore, we won't be contacting the
> chapters until we've exhausted our current available resources. Again,
I
> want to emphasize that we will not be asking
for any additional
paperwork
to be
submitted. *
*I worry that your target of 20 January won't be met, as we don't have
the
resources to help revalidate your data at that
point of our year.
December
is difficult, as the FDC figures are released
then - which is when we
need
> to construct our final budget for the next year. January/February is
also
> difficult , as all our staff are already
pre-booked working on our
> financial year end of January 31 - which is also an FDC quarter end -
so
there's a lot of work to be done!*
*We completely understand how overwhelming work can be near the end of
the
> year and the end of respective fiscal years. The date indicated is not
a
hard
deadline, but rather a tentative date the fellows have set
themselves
as a group milestone; by no means is this date a
"drop-dead" item. We
fully
> appreciate the work our partner organizations conduct and we
acknowledge
> the difference in abilities to respond to
requests. Hopefully we are
able
> to catch the chapters at the most convenient
time possible over the
next
> few months. Again, we will not reach out
until we make certain that the
> data we intend to find is not already available. *
>
> *Has anyone contacted movement orgs already, perhaps a few months ago?
*
>
> *No, movement organizations were not contacted about this project
within
> the past few months.*
>
> *Will you need to talk to treasurers? If so, please let us know as far
in
advance
as you can so we can book dates for meetings!*
*At this time, there is no need to talk to the treasurers. If the there
is
> a time, we will contact them as far ahead as possible. *
>
> *What happens if movement orgs do not have time to check your data?
Will
> you go ahead with "unvalidated"
data in your report, or will you be
able
to
> move your timeline to fit with ours?*
>
> *We are here to meet your schedule as best as we can. Given the
six-month
duration
of the fellows time here at WMF, we hope to conclude this
project
> before the end of March 2015 and to conclude the initial phase of
> consolidating the data earlier than that. However, we are flexible.
> Ideally, we would like to validate all the data we receive, but we
> understand that this may not be the case for every item. We will
indicate
> line items that have not been validated in
our final report, if need
be.
That
said, we appreciate if you are able to help us make the most
accurate
final product possible. *
*How much input will chapters have in the process? who will have the
"final
> say" in the comparisons - presumably the WMF? *
>
> *Chapters are strongly encouraged to offer their input throughout the
> entire process. After all, this project concerns you! Chapters are
> encouraged to reach out directly via the project's meta page
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement-wide_Financial_Report> and
the
fellows' pages with their questions, comments, and suggestions. Once we
have gathered as much information as possible, we will attempt to
consolidate our findings into a single, movement-wide report. Garfield
Byrd
will monitor and determine the viability of the
final product, but any
product rendered will be the result of the participation of our partner
organizations. If there are concerns about the quality of the data then
it
will be highlighted in the report. *
*In response to MZMcBrIde, the user account 'WMF Finance Fellows' will
not
> be used to make any edits on any of the Wikimedia projects. *
>
>
> *Thank you,*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> > Thank you Garfield for your quick reply - and with welcome news in
it.
I
am
heartened to see your clarification/confirmation
that this project is
specifically intending to re-use existing documentation and not to
increase
> the "red tape" or compliance-requirements of chapters. Also, as
mentioned
> in my first email, I would like to reiterate
my support for the idea
that
> (especially smaller/newer) chapters have a
dedicated contact person.
This
> > will be very helpful for many.
> >
> > On the other note I raised, could you/anyone also address whether the
> > chapters had prior-awareness of this new project's existence or
planned
> > creation before this email
announcement?
> >
> > On Friday, 31 October 2014, Garfield Byrd <gbyrd(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
>
> > Liam:
> >
> > My apologies for the language you noted, it was not our intent to,
even
> > > inadvertently, to degrade anyone. We fully appreciate the
abilities
of
> our
> > community and I know from my meetings with members of our community
how
> > > smart and engaged they are in a variety of issues impacting the
> Wikimedia
> > > movement.
> > >
> > >
> > > I want to clarify that these Fellows are not auditors. They will
be
> > > working from data as presented by
the movement entities. The
project
has
> > been designed so that the fellows will be using existing data
provided
by
> > movement entities and the Fellows will only be reaching out to
movement
> > > entities with clarifying questions. So there should be no material
> > > increase in staff/volunteer time to provide information for this
> project.
> > > If this not the case, please let me know.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Garfield
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt(a)gmail.com
> > > <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Interesting development. Probably a very good idea for
transparency
and
> > good use of the movement's money,
and consistency of reporting to
make
> > things comparable is a great goal. I
especially think that for
smaller
> > > chapters there is lots of value in having a dedicated contact
person!
> > >
> > > But I find the self-description of the Fellows as "an elite group
of
> > > global
> > > > operatives"[1] a bit degrading to the rest of us...
> > > >
> > > > I presume it's taken a fair while to recruit the team and scope
the
> > > project
> > > > too (I see one linkedin profile which says they've been working
> already
> > > for
> > > > two months[3]). So, I wonder - did the Chapters who have been
> allocated
> > > to
> > > > each of these new auditors[2] have any notice that this new
process
> was
> > > > being created before it was announced today - so they were able
to
> make
> > > any
> > > > other time-commitments without being surprised by a new layer of
> > > paperwork?
> > > >
> > > > Also, I presume that the increased amount of staff/volunteer time
> > needed
> > > to
> > > > comply with new paperwork will be offset by streamlining this
with
other
> > WMF-compliance paperwork?
> >
> > [1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oolukoya_(WMF)
> > [2]
> >
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement-wide_Financial_Report#Who_We_Are
> > > > [3]
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/seyi-olukoya/59/b09/a7
> > > >
> > > >
wittylama.com
> > > > Peace, love & metadata
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
wittylama.com
> > > > Peace, love & metadata
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> > > > Unsubscribe:
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
<javascript:;>
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Garfield Byrd
> > > Chief of Finance and Administration
> > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > 415.839.6885 ext 6787
> > > 415.882.0495 (fax)
> > >
www.wikimediafoundation.org
> > >
> > > Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share
in
> >
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> >
> > *https://donate.wikimedia.org <https://donate.wikimedia.org/>*
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:;>
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
wittylama.com
> > Peace, love & metadata
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
Michael Guss
Research Analyst
Wikimediafoundation.org
mguss(a)wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.w…
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>